I've always wanted to know this - how do container ships keep the shipping containers from sliding off the deck during rough seas? I know the containers themselves are really heavy and big (they only look small compared to the rest of the ship!) but I would think one rogue wave and all those containers would be at the bottom of the ocean.

It is an old question, but since I inerned a year on containerships I should answer it.

Twistlocks have an oblong part that fits in the blong holes in the corners of containers, and that can be turned 90 degrees to fix them into place. There are twistlocks connected to the ships deck, and the lowest container is put on these, after which they are locked.

Since the containers also have connection fo twistlocks on their roof, you can put a second container on the the bottom container, with twistlocks between them, and so secure them together.

For extra security lashings are also being used. These are metal chains that have a method to really tighten them so far that there is no stretch in them at all. These chains are used for diagonal connections between containers or between containers and the deck. Lashing are used in combination with twistlocks, not as a replacement.

Containerships that need these method are often general cargo ships that are being used as container ships, but can be used for other cargo as well. Ships that are build only for the transport of containers are ususaly cellular containerships.

Cellulars containerships have open holds, with a frame that goes from the bottom of the ship to higher then the deck, in which containers fit exactly. On a cellular ship, you do not need twistlocks for the containers that are placed in the frame (you can not even use twistlocks, because the fram is in the way) but they are often being loaded up to 6 containers over the edge of the frame (depending on ship size) and the higher containers do need twistlock.

I think she misunderstood something in her driver's training. That the instructor said "For standard transmissions shift into neutral" and she thought "standard" mean "automatic" rather than "manual." Because now that most cars have automatic transmission, it IS the standard form of transmission!

Except that you do not shift a manual transmision in neutral when stopping, only when you are almost at a stop, do you press the clucth (but this is not neutal) for most of the stopping process you keep the car in the gears, to help with stopping.

I think she misunderstood something in her driver's training. That the instructor said "For standard transmissions shift into neutral" and she thought "standard" mean "automatic" rather than "manual." Because now that most cars have automatic transmission, it IS the standard form of transmission!

Except that you do not shift a manual transmision in neutral when stopping, only when you are almost at a stop, do you press the clucth (but this is not neutal) for most of the stopping process you keep the car in the gears, to help with stopping.

I tend to depress the clutch fairly early in the stopping process, but I don't take it out of gear until I'm at a complete stop. Well, I do downshift to the appropriate gear for the speed as I'm slowing down, particularly in bad conditions.

Logged

Some people lift weights. I lift measures. It's a far more esoteric workout. - (Quoted from a personal friend)

Many years ago I had a really crappy car. It was automatic transmission but it had no 'choke'. So until it was well warmed up, if I came to a complete stop, it would stall. Since I hated waiting very long for it to warm up, I would just go, and if I hit a red light, I'd shift it into neutral and gas the engine to keep from stalling. But other then some situation like that (and honestly that was a car made in the 70's or 80's I don't even know if modern cars have carburators anymore (aren't they fuel injected now?)) I have never heard of it being standard to shift into neutral on a well working vehicle though.

"Many years ago I had a really crappy car. It was automatic transmission but it had no 'choke'. So until it was well warmed up, if I came to a complete stop, it would stall. Since I hated waiting very long for it to warm up, I would just go, and if I hit a red light, I'd shift it into neutral and gas the engine to keep from stalling."

Of course, then the question becomes, why didn't you just gas the car at the stop light without bothering the shifter? An automatic transmission will let the engine spin under power and the brakes will keep the car still. It's not delightful for the transmission, but since it was "a really crappy car" I can't say I'd brook too much concern for it in your shoes.

As a general rule, shifting an automatic transmission isn't necessary and it's not a good idea to put it out of gear in an emergency situation because it's just something else you'd be devoting attention to when you really need to devote attention elsewhere.

Drivers' Ed circa 1977 - we were instructed to put an automatic transmission into neutral when stopped at a stoplight. The theory being that in the event of a rear end collision it would somehow limit the damage to the driver/vehicle. My brother had the same Drivers' Ed instructor in 1979 and was not taught that. Instead that it was imperative to be in drive in that event that an evasive maneuver was needed and also that ones foot should be firmly on the brake pedal so that in the event of a rear end collision your vehicle would not be as likely to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

Drivers' Ed circa 1977 - we were instructed to put an automatic transmission into neutral when stopped at a stoplight. The theory being that in the event of a rear end collision it would somehow limit the damage to the driver/vehicle. My brother had the same Drivers' Ed instructor in 1979 and was not taught that. Instead that it was imperative to be in drive in that event that an evasive maneuver was needed and also that ones foot should be firmly on the brake pedal so that in the event of a rear end collision your vehicle would not be as likely to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

That sounds like terrible instruction. In the event of a rear end collision all the force of the accident would be transferred up your leg into your hips and pelvis with your foot on the brake like that. Still, I guess they maybe weren't as aware of these things in the 70s.

On that subject, my own "this might be a stupid question, but": Why do so many people in America learn to drive from their parents rather than using a qualified driving instructor? It seems to me like parents would simply pass their bad habits on to the kids. I've always wondered this when reading threads about terrible drivers.

On that subject, my own "this might be a stupid question, but": Why do so many people in America learn to drive from their parents rather than using a qualified driving instructor? It seems to me like parents would simply pass their bad habits on to the kids. I've always wondered this when reading threads about terrible drivers.

I get the impression that 'Drivers' Ed' is class based.

Driver's Ed is expensive. Some people pony up the money anyway, since some insurance companies will give you a break on new driver insurance if you have it. And some schools offer slightly cheaper classes to their students.

But a lot of teens figure they can drive just fine, so they don't need it, right? And the parents also figure they are good drivers, so they can teach their teens just fine, right? And thus the Special Snowflakery is passed down to the next generation.

Logged

You are only young once. After that you have to think up some other excuse.

On that subject, my own "this might be a stupid question, but": Why do so many people in America learn to drive from their parents rather than using a qualified driving instructor? It seems to me like parents would simply pass their bad habits on to the kids. I've always wondered this when reading threads about terrible drivers.

I get the impression that 'Drivers' Ed' is class based.

Driver's Ed is expensive. Some people pony up the money anyway, since some insurance companies will give you a break on new driver insurance if you have it. And some schools offer slightly cheaper classes to their students.

But a lot of teens figure they can drive just fine, so they don't need it, right? And the parents also figure they are good drivers, so they can teach their teens just fine, right? And thus the Special Snowflakery is passed down to the next generation.

It's expensive here too, but it's almost unheard of not to take professional instruction or 'driving lessons', usually in a car with dual controls, then when your instructor deems you ready to take your driving test, you put in for it.

I'm always shocked, for example, to read about the sheer number of people who can't back into or out of a parking space or have trouble with basic things that would be required competencies in our driving test. I've always wondered if this is because they were taught by parents who also didn't know how to do it, because nobody ever took lessons.

Driver's ed is sometimes offered through the schools, but not always. Mine (private company) only covered a handful of lessons (I think I had six) and a classroom segment. Even if you do take driver's ed classes, you still need a lot more time behind the wheel than that, hence the parents. Also, most states have some variant of a "learner's permit" where teens are only allowed to drive with parents/guardians and sometimes immediate family members in the car, usually for several months leading up to when they can take their driver's test. Some states have restricted driving past that (e.g. can't drive with other teens in the car at night), but the end result is that it mostly falls to the parents to teach American teens. I imagine it's probably much harder to learn to drive if you don't learn before you're out of your parents' house.

A recent survey determined that 97% of US drivers felt that they were "above average" drivers. And why should who feels they are an "above average" driver lay out $$$$ for lessons for their kid?

Logged

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Common sense is not a gift, but a curse. Because thenyou have to deal with all the people who don't have it. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

A recent survey determined that 97% of US drivers felt that they were "above average" drivers. And why should who feels they are an "above average" driver lay out $$$$ for lessons for their kid?

LOL! Sort of changes what "average" means, eh?

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post about optimism and how people are generally very optimistic about their lives and futures. They underestimate--by a lot--their own odds of dying, getting cancer, losing their jobs, etc. I think "How good a driver are you?" would fit into the same mold.

A recent survey determined that 97% of US drivers felt that they were "above average" drivers. And why should who feels they are an "above average" driver lay out $$$$ for lessons for their kid?

LOL! Sort of changes what "average" means, eh?

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post about optimism and how people are generally very optimistic about their lives and futures. They underestimate--by a lot--their own odds of dying, getting cancer, losing their jobs, etc. I think "How good a driver are you?" would fit into the same mold.

I think the layman's term is Lake Woebegon Effect. You know, the place where "all the children are above average." The Wikipedia article on "Illusory Superiority" lists a whole bunch of specific areas where that sort of bias comes into play, but it pretty much boils down to: someone with limited knowledge doesn't know enough to recognize that lack. And driving ability is *definitely* on that list.

A recent survey determined that 97% of US drivers felt that they were "above average" drivers. And why should who feels they are an "above average" driver lay out $$$$ for lessons for their kid?

Next dumb question: why do I not see errors in my post even when I proofread it before hitting the 'post' button, but they leap out at me when someone quotes me?

Logged

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Common sense is not a gift, but a curse. Because thenyou have to deal with all the people who don't have it. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Drivers' Ed circa 1977 - we were instructed to put an automatic transmission into neutral when stopped at a stoplight. The theory being that in the event of a rear end collision it would somehow limit the damage to the driver/vehicle. My brother had the same Drivers' Ed instructor in 1979 and was not taught that. Instead that it was imperative to be in drive in that event that an evasive maneuver was needed and also that ones foot should be firmly on the brake pedal so that in the event of a rear end collision your vehicle would not be as likely to be pushed into oncoming traffic.

That sounds like terrible instruction. In the event of a rear end collision all the force of the accident would be transferred up your leg into your hips and pelvis with your foot on the brake like that. Still, I guess they maybe weren't as aware of these things in the 70s.

On that subject, my own "this might be a stupid question, but": Why do so many people in America learn to drive from their parents rather than using a qualified driving instructor? It seems to me like parents would simply pass their bad habits on to the kids. I've always wondered this when reading threads about terrible drivers.

I get the impression that 'Drivers' Ed' is class based.

What is really scary is that prior to 2010 people who were parent taught did NOT have to take the driving test in Texas. Their parents just had to sign a form saying the child was a good driver. Unfortunately when the law was changed they did not cancel the DL obtained under the old system.

I know a couple of people that tried to get their child's DL's pulled because the other parent (Join Custody) had done the sign off thing, but the child was not ready to be driving. The best they could do was sign their child up for a real class and prohibit them from driving when they were the parent in charge.